UKC

Bolting and The Equippers legal responsibilities

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 andyb211 03 Dec 2016
Does anyone know what the legal responsibilities/liabilities are for equippers that bolt routes both in the UK and abroad?

 HeMa 03 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

pretty much nada...
 UKB Shark 03 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Thankfully not tested legally yet.

If you are a BMC member you are covered if someone sues you for a bolt failing, as long as you have followed best practice as set out in their bolting guidelines. You need to be a BMC member both at the time of installation and at the time you get sued. I don't know if this cover extends to bolting abroad
Post edited at 18:06
 Mark Stevenson 03 Dec 2016
In reply to HeMa: Not quite correct.

If you don't have the land owners permission you could, technically, be guilty of either or both of criminal damage or trespass.

If the crag is an SSSI, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, that is listed in respect of the geology or specific flora on the cliffs, you could potentially be committing a criminal offence.

Equally, if there are nesting birds, that are subject to specific protections, again by being on the cliffs bolting you could be committing a criminal offence.

Finally if you bolt in contravention of an agreed BMC or SMC bolt policy you will find that your bolts are probably chopped before even Adam Ondra could manage a second ascent. Also you'll either be subject to a torrent of online abuse from a load of sanctimonious arm chair critics or if you've been particularly idiotic you'll risk getting physically beaten up by the local climbing mafia.

Finally, if you bolt a complete load of crap, you'll just demonstrate to the world that you're a bit of a narcissistic wanker with nothing better to do with their life.

Apart from that, there is not even a snowball's chance in Hell of any legal comeback if in ten or twenty years time if one of the bolts ever failed.



13
 henwardian 03 Dec 2016
In reply to Mark Stevenson:

> Apart from that, there is not even a snowball's chance in Hell of any legal comeback if in ten or twenty years time if one of the bolts ever failed.

This.
In the UK.
Frankly, even it failed the next day, I can't see how you would be subject to repercussions on anything except your reputation because:
- Nobody has a qualification to bolt so you can't be derelict in any sort of professional duty.
- You don't own the land and are not charging people for access.
- Unless there was an army of onlookers, it would likely to next to impossible to prove who had placed the bolts in the first place if that person didnt fancy being cooperative.
- If you think about it, what is the difference between "a bolt failed and I got injured" and "I pulled off a block and got injured" and "The situ piton/can/microwire failed and I got injured"? You sure as hell are not going to be able to sue someone for not properly cleaning a new route they put up or some situ gear failing so I'd say you can't sue for a bolt failing either.
- etc. etc. etc.
The first two are probably the main legal barriers to suing through.

Frankly the injury prone individual would have more liklihood of suing the guidebook author I think.

It varies a fair bit by country. I was told that somewhere, can't remember where, if you bolt a route so the person could hit the ground while clipping any bolt except the first one then you could theoretically be sued if someone did just that. Really you would have to find out on a country by country basis.
Andy Gamisou 04 Dec 2016
In reply to henwardian:
>> Really you would have to find out on a country by country basis.

In Cyprus there is a proposed law that if enacted will, with certain exceptions, make bolting a criminal offence punishable by up to one years in prison and/or a fine of up to 3K. Ironically the main instigators of this law is the Cyprus equivalent of the BMC.
Post edited at 05:03
1
 Trangia 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Your phone rings and a voice says "Have you been involved in an accident in the last two years that wasn't your fault?"

Take it on from there..........

I'm sure the "whiplash wallahs" could make a meal of a bolt failing scenario on your behalf, and you won't have to pay a penny in legal fees
2
In reply to andyb211:

How would you prove who placed each bolt.. ?
 Dogwatch 04 Dec 2016
In reply to henwardian:
> - Nobody has a qualification to bolt so you can't be derelict in any sort of professional duty.

Take a stroll through the law of negligence sometime. It is not restricted to activities which are either professional nor ones for which there is a qualification.

> it would likely to next to impossible to prove who had placed the bolts in the first place if that person didnt fancy being cooperative.

Since the FA is helpfully listed in guidebooks, it isn't generally hard to figure out who placed bolts and it doesn't have to be "proved". Civil cases are decided on balance of probabilities.
Post edited at 08:47
Crackstone Rib 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:
I think you would be negligent under tort, so could be liable. Difficult to prove that your bolting was negligent, but not impossible. Expert witnesses against might do it. M'learned friends would have to confirm this.
Maybe the BMC needs a sort of professional indemnity insurance for bolters?

3
Doug Kerr 04 Dec 2016
In reply to henwardian:

> It varies a fair bit by country. I was told that somewhere, can't remember where, if you bolt a route so the person could hit the ground while clipping any bolt except the first one then you could theoretically be sued if someone did just that. Really you would have to find out on a country by country basis.

Does it, that's interesing.
What about people hitting the ground as a result of crap, inattentive belaying?
Last year I came within inches of hitting the ground, clipping the third bolt, when a foothold broke, it took me and the belayer completeley by suprise and of course I had rope out in mid-clip. Funnily enough it was one of my routes - thankfully it didn't come to litigation.
In reply to henwardian:

> Frankly the injury prone individual would have more liklihood of suing the guidebook author I think.

This.
Whoever put the bolts in isn't relevant if he hasn't gone around telling people they are there for climbing protection. He could have been putting up a banner or a washing line or even demonstrating to someone how NOT to put bolts in. It's only when the bolts are publicised as climbing protection that someone else has reasonable grounds to believe they are safe, so the person providing that information (blogger, guidebook author, Ukc crag moderator/editor?) has more responsibility than the bolter.

Replacing bolts on an already established route would be a different matter.

2
 Dogwatch 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
> Whoever put the bolts in isn't relevant if he hasn't gone around telling people they are there for climbing protection. He could have been putting up a banner or a washing line or even demonstrating to someone how NOT to put bolts in. It's only when the bolts are publicised as climbing protection that someone else has reasonable grounds to believe they are safe, so the person providing that information (blogger, guidebook author, Ukc crag moderator/editor?) has more responsibility than the bolter.

So today John Smith is considering going out to an established sports crag in order to put in some bolts for a washing line. John is a well-known climbing activist. He knows that it is a sports crag. Strangely, the line of those bolts for a washing line heads upwards for 10 metres and terminates at a lower-off. Nevertheless John maintains that the bolts were only intended for a washing line. Jill clips the second one but falls, it rips and and she decks. Broken back.

How do we think John's day in court might play out? Do we think John owes other climbers a duty of care in bolting what looks awfully like a route on an established crag? If so, do we think that duty of care was breached? Bearing in mind the standard of proof is balance of probabilities.
Post edited at 11:29
3
In reply to Dogwatch:
But Jill has gone out to take part in Rock Climbing, a hazardous activity as recognised in the BMCs participation statement. Not only that, she has started up a route that does not appear in any guidebook without any concern about whether the climb is within her abilities and using some bolts that somebody else put in for their own personal use. Volenti non fit injuria. No case to answer.

On the other hand if the route was in the guidebook as "A well protected 4b" and Jill regularly climbs 6a and was just warming up....
Post edited at 13:40
 Andy Say 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Scotch Bingington:

> In Cyprus there is a proposed law that if enacted will, with certain exceptions, make bolting a criminal offence punishable by up to one years in prison and/or a fine of up to 3K. Ironically the main instigators of this law is the Cyprus equivalent of the BMC.

There's no 'irony' there at all.
 Andy Say 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

> Does anyone know what the legal responsibilities/liabilities are for equippers that bolt routes both in the UK and abroad?

The 'responsibility' is to do it as well as you can, conforming to accepted good practice.
The 'liability' is that if you do it badly someone else gets hurt.

I can only think of two instances of bolt failure through 'xxxxxx' (can't think of another word for negligence that doesn't sound legalistic; 'error in placing' perhaps?) and in one of them someone got hurt. I'm sure there are more. Recently there was a case of inappropriate bolts being used through ignorance. Bolt failure through degredation of the bolt is another matter.
 Andy Say 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

> But Jill has gone out to take part in Rock Climbing, a hazardous activity as recognised in the BMCs participation statement. Not only that, she has started up a route that does not appear in any guidebook without any concern about whether the climb is within her abilities and using some bolts that somebody else put in for their own personal use. Volenti non fit injuria. No case to answer.

When someone can get a 5 figure payout mainly because a hold spun on a bouldering wall then we can't be too sure. And any barrister would rip the 'I only put the bolts in for my own use' argument to shreds; its simply not true.

2
Andy Gamisou 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> There's no 'irony' there at all.

Explain?
 Wsdconst 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Bolting is a scary thing really, although we'd all like to think all the people who are doing it are competent, I doubt this is the case. Coming from a construction background I've seen a lot of scary dangerous things done by people who should know what they're doing, maybe it's this that makes me a little cynical. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying they're all incompetent, but I bet some of them are.
 brianjcooper 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
I think your post, despite several dislikes, sums it up quite nicely.

Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but outdoors I don't see any difference between old pegs, loose rock, and bolts. They are all suspect and need to be treated as fallible. Some guide books also say as much. So why be surprised if they fail.

However, if I pay to use bolted routes at an indoor wall, then I would expect the centre to be legally responsible for
any bolt failures as they should be maintaining them.
Post edited at 17:41
 jimtitt 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

The legal principle in many countries including the UK is Volenti non fit injuria – which suggests that an adult taking part willingly in an activity, aware of the risks and accepting them, can’t later seek compensation for an injury suffered as a result of participation. This has been established a number of times in higher court judgements.
Rock climbing is clearly a risk activity in the view of the "normal person" (if perhaps not in the eyes of climbers themselves) and the consequences of any equipment failure quite obvious to anyone including climbers.
Negligence claims have proved impossible to pursue, to stand up in court you need to prove that the person was knowingly negligent. To quote the UIAA legal advisors:-

"To establish that there has been negligence three factors must exist:
(i) a duty of care must be owed in the first place
(ii) there must have been a breach of that duty of care
(iii) actual damage must have resulted from that breach of duty of care."

A court is unlikely to feel that failure of a bolt installed for example fifteen years earlier and used by many thousands of climbers in the meantime means the installer had a duty of care to the specific user unless the installer was stupid enough to put in writing that the bolt will be safe in fifteen years time.
For organisations and commercial users this is a liability problem as they are assumed to have taken on a duty of care, for "private" bolters the assumption is they were installed without any implication they are ever "safe" or will be at any point in the future.


In reply to jimtitt:

Jim, I don't think we're talking about bolts failing fifteen years later.

As I said in the post linked to above, I think there is more or less no doubt that a sufficiently negligent bolter could be found liable in a civil case in this country.

And rightly so. If you go and put up a new route at Dancing Ledge and publicise it, and the anchors fail and kill the first climber who uses it because, let us say, you have failed to glue them in or test them in any way, you have to be a fairly anti-law zealot to think that the bolter shouldn't be liable.

Who are the UIAA exactly? They're not talking about UK civil law, I don't think.

jcm
 jimtitt 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Jim, I don't think we're talking about bolts failing fifteen years later.

> As I said in the post linked to above, I think there is more or less no doubt that a sufficiently negligent bolter could be found liable in a civil case in this country.

> And rightly so. If you go and put up a new route at Dancing Ledge and publicise it, and the anchors fail and kill the first climber who uses it because, let us say, you have failed to glue them in or test them in any way, you have to be a fairly anti-law zealot to think that the bolter shouldn't be liable.

> Who are the UIAA exactly? They're not talking about UK civil law, I don't think.

> jcm

The UIAA provided that opinion at the request of the BMC for their guidance document on liability.
That an installer may have been negligent is effectively irrelevant. That failure of a bolt could have fatal consequences is obvious to anyone and that the victim then failed to take their own measures to ensure their own safety would normally make any action fail.
Any piece of fixed equipment may be completely safe one day and completely unsafe the next. Proving otherwise would be impossible.
1
 wintertree 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

If the failed bolt isn't traceable back to you it's a bit of a moot point.

I've no idea if properly spec'd bolts have engraved serial numbers and if manufacturers track them through sales. Standard practice for life critical components in some fields.
In reply to wintertree:

> I've no idea if properly spec'd bolts have engraved serial numbers

Still irrelevant as once the bolter had walked away from the Crag they have no control over how the bolt is treated - number and direction of falls, weathering, malicious cutting etc.
 wintertree 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

> Still irrelevant as once the bolter had walked away from the Crag they have no control over how the bolt is treated - number and direction of falls, weathering, malicious cutting etc.

I was thinking about traceability not liability. Being traced and then hit with a law suit and having to hire solicitors to demonstrate you are not liable is not a great outcome.
 Jon Stewart 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Who are the UIAA exactly? They're not talking about UK civil law, I don't think.

I think they're talking straightforwardly about negligence and duty of care with explicit reference to UK civil law (as an optometrist I have a tiny amount of training in what it means to be negligent, and that's precisely what's quoted here).

As such, as far as I can see someone bolting a route has no duty of care towards others who choose to climb it at their own risk, and if ever such a case even came anywhere near a court, I would quietly sob, mourning the death of rock climbing.
In reply to jimtitt:

>The UIAA provided that opinion at the request of the BMC for their guidance document on liability.

Sorry, Jim, I'm lost. Are you saying that the UIAA gave the BMC legal advice about British law? It doesn't sound like the obvious source for that advice.

I am under the impression that the BMC has taken legal advice about this question from an actual lawyer, though I could be wrong.

>That failure of a bolt could have fatal consequences is obvious to anyone and that the victim then failed to take their own measures to ensure their own safety would normally make any action fail.

What measures do you think climbers generally take to check the bolts on a newly established sport route before climbing it?

>Any piece of fixed equipment may be completely safe one day and completely unsafe the next. Proving otherwise would be impossible.

Well, that's just not true, is it? If someone has used bolts whose manufacturer specifies they should not be used for climbing, and they then fail a week or two after installation, the court is likely to conclude on the balance of probabilities that they were never safe and it was negligent to use them.

jcm
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I think they're talking straightforwardly about negligence and duty of care with explicit reference to UK civil law (as an optometrist I have a tiny amount of training in what it means to be negligent, and that's precisely what's quoted here).

I too have a tiny amount of training, and I agree that what is quoted could come straight out of a Ladybird guide to the law of negligence. It doesn't take us anywhere, however.

> As such, as far as I can see someone bolting a route has no duty of care towards others who choose to climb it at their own risk, and if ever such a case even came anywhere near a court, I would quietly sob, mourning the death of rock climbing.

If we wanted to maintain the idea that people climb at their own risk, we probably shouldn't have allowed a form of climbing to develop where people rely entirely on the technical competence of others to undertake that form of climbing safely.

Let's face it. The only responsible advice is that no-one knows until a case comes to court. If the UIAA or the BMC are saying differently then they shouldn't be.

However, I have discussed this question informally with quite a few senior lawyers including some who are now judges. Based on those discussions I can tell you for certain that if there is a case then there is at the very least a real possibility that a duty of care will be found to exist. The fact that some climbers don't like that isn't going to change the law. We'd do better to get our heads out of the sand, recognise that reality and consider whether anything can usefully be done about it. (which to be fair it looks as though the BMC have done, assuming what Shark says above is right, and I expect it is).

jcm
Post edited at 21:34
 Jon Stewart 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That's terrifying, and frankly impossible to understand from my perspective.

The idea that people in the legal profession could think that they were acting in the public interest be ruling that someone bolting a route had a duty of care to those who chose to climb it using that gear is simply barking mad from where I'm stood. The amount of damage caused to people's personal lives as climbers caused by such a ruling would be immense and be permanent, passed down the generations. The death knell of climbing.

If someone breaks their back, then that's shit, but shit happens. They went out climbing and put all their trust in some bit of metal stuck in a cliff, which they evidently failed to inspect and evaluate. I am chilled by the thought of what lawyers could do to climbing.
10
 james mann 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:
Whilst having little grasp of the legal responsibility on the part of the bolter, I would say that those bolting usually wish to leave the crag in a decent state for those who follow. That means that they will use good quality bolts and resin, that they clean holes really thoroughly and make sure that what they place is done as well as possible. They usually wish to climb the routes they've put hard work into and wish for others to do so also as safely as possible.

Most climbing accidents result from a failure or mistake of some kind in the human rather than the mechanical system involved in climbing like bad belaying, poor commication, gear placement or even just over ambition.

Having said this, there is absolutely no excuse for poor bolts being placed today. Glue ins should be used exclusively and bolts should come from a reputable source. In the past, much bad bolting has occurred due to doing it on the cheap; expansion bolts or rebar staples are not the best product in 2016 and we shouldn't be using them.

Legally, I don't know how the law would operate around this subject, but feel that if the bolter has followed best practice with good quality materials, that they have fulfilled, fully their obligation to leave the bolt in the safest state for other climbers.

James
Post edited at 21:48
In reply to Jon Stewart:
>They went out climbing and put all their trust in some bit of metal stuck in a cliff, which they evidently failed to inspect and evaluate.

I don't understand why people always say this. From my point of view this is just stupid. When I go sport climbing, I don't 'inspect and evaluate' the bolts before I set off. Nor does anyone I know.

If I don't and by the sixth bolt I'm pumped, I can evaluate the bolt all I like, but it isn't going to help. If it turns out that none of the bolts will support body weight because the chap who bolted the route last week used bolts which it turns out were designed for holding up curtains, then probably I'm dead.

Everyone knows, if they are honest, that this is the reality of the situation.

Given that, from my point of view, to suggest that there is not a duty of care is absolutely bonkers, especially for a climber who knows perfectly well that if bolting is not properly done people will surely die.

Did you btw read or follow at the time the thread above concerning the well-known Australian climber killed in these circumstances? How anyone could say that making the perpetrators of the bolting there liable in those circumstances was 'the death of climbing' is beyond me.

jcm
Post edited at 21:47
1
In reply to james mann:
>Legally, I don't know how the law would operate around this subject, but feel that if the bolter has followed best practice with good quality materials, that they have fulfilled, fully their obligation to leave the bolt in the safest state for other climbers.

They have. No question.

I have the impression that some people don't understand what "a duty of care" means. It means a duty to take care. Not an absolute duty to ensure that the bolt doesn't fail.

jcm
Post edited at 21:49
 Jon Stewart 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I don't understand why people always say this. From my point of view this is just stupid. When I go sport climbing, I don't 'inspect and evaluate' the bolts before I set off. Nor does anyone I know.

And you also know that you haven't done it, while understanding that if you wanted to reduce the risk of injury or death that's exactly what would be required. It is your choice whether or not to find a way to inspect each bolt, or whether to throw caution to the wind and set off assuming everything will be fine, because it almost always is. That is what risk is. If a rock climber cannot be held responsible for their own risk assessment, then what in the name of f*ck is going on?

> If I don't and by the sixth bolt I'm pumped, I can evaluate the bolt all I like, but it isn't going to help. If it turns out that none of the bolts will support body weight because the chap who bolted the route last week used bolts which it turns out were designed for holding up curtains, then probably I'm dead.

Yes, and you'd have done well to notice that the bolts were actually curtain hooks, but if you didn't, then hey-ho, I hope you enjoy the funeral.

> Did you btw read or follow at the time the thread above concerning the well-known Australian climber killed in these circumstances? How anyone could say that making the perpetrators of the bolting there liable in those circumstances was 'the death of climbing' is beyond me.

Perhaps I should read this, but I'm not going to like it, am I?

4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
>The amount of damage caused to people's personal lives as climbers caused by such a ruling would be immense and be permanent, passed down the generations.

This is total cobblers. All that it would mean is that bolters had to join the BMC and follow its best practice guidelines when bolting. That's not exactly going to sign the death warrant of climbing. Get a grip.

jcm
Post edited at 22:03
1
 Jon Stewart 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> This is total cobblers. All that it would mean is that bolters had to join the BMC and follow its best practice guidelines when bolting. That's not exactly going to sign the death warrant of climbing. Get a grip.

That's fine at face value, but I'm not convinced that is all it would mean. And I also don't know what that would mean in practice anyway. That someone bolting a new line then needs to create a paper trail that they've followed the guidelines. And in turn that the guidelines themselves are adequate to guard against injury.

Can you understand why I would see the idea of one climber getting lawyers in to shaft another climber who'd made a mistake be bad thing rather than a great public service, worth a large fee?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>And in turn that the guidelines themselves are adequate to guard against injury.

It doesn't mean that at all.

I think this is why people get so foolishly emotive about this subject; they just don't have any grasp of what they're talking about.

What it means is that as long as best practice is followed the bolter is insured. If it turns out there is a flaw in the guidelines, therefore, it doesn't affect him.

If there is a flaw in the guidelines which causes a death then the case will probably also fail because the duty of care has been discharged, but the main point is that the bolter won't in practical terms be bothered with the case at all.

jcm



In reply to Jon Stewart:
>Can you understand why I would see the idea of one climber getting lawyers in to shaft another climber who'd made a mistake be bad thing rather than a great public service, worth a large fee?

I'm familiar with the pathology of it, certainly. Lawyers don't consider whether the case they're taking is in the public interest any more than say, policeman, accountants or train drivers do.

It is in general in the public interest that there should be a system of law, and that people should be able to exercise their rights under that law. Everyone agrees with that.

One can imagine various mechanisms for delivering that aim, but the one we have is that lawyers assist people and get paid in return.

If you think about it, you will see that it is better for Parliament and the courts to determine what people what people's legal rights are, rather than for lawyers to decide whether they wish to advise in individual cases or not and so de facto make the law themselves. It is also inevitable, I am afraid, that lawyers should be paid. Drawing lawyers exclusively from the ranks of benefit claimants and the independently wealthy would not be a good idea.

Most people can see this in the abstract, but when they see legal cases succeed which they would prefer to see fail, it is easier to blame the lawyers. When this happens, it is invariably a sign that the lawyers concerned are discharging their duties well and that the system is functioning as it should.

In general, the public view on how the legal system ought to function varies quite sharply according to whether they have personally suffered a wrong or not.
Post edited at 22:33
1
 Oliver Houston 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Quick wikipedia definition which follows my understanding from A-level law (10+ years ago):

"In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation, which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others."

For a claim to be successful:

"The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached."

From the above, to me it appears clear that bolters owe a duty of care to climbers who climb the routes they bolt (apply the neighbour principle), however, the bolter must be shown to have been negligent for a case to be successful.

>That someone bolting a new line then needs to create a paper trail that they've followed the guidelines.

Probably not, the bolts themselves would be evidence, as well as any logbook, or witness statements that showed the bolter new what they were doing. On the other side, pictures of poor bolting could be used by the claimant... The judge would almost certainly rely on "expert" opinion as to whether or not the bolting was up to standard.
Ditto biggest hurdle for the claimant (assuming poor bolting) would be proving who placed the specific bolt that failed.

> Can you understand why I would see the idea of one climber getting lawyers in to shaft another climber who'd made a mistake be bad thing rather than a great public service, worth a large fee?

I totally agree that we don't want climbers to be suing each other as it would almost certainly put some bolters off. But if the suggestion is that prospective bolters spend half a day with an expert (plus get BMC insurance) and learn best practice properly before running into a quarry with a drill , I don't think it's too much to ask.
In fact, I would be seriously wary of anyone who felt confident enough to start bolting before at least talking to someone else.
 Oliver Houston 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

For the Neighbour principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

In short: Anyone likely to be affected by your actions or ommissions counts as your neighbour, whether or not you have any contact with them.
 RupertD 04 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

With a few nuances that I can't be bothered addressing because I'm on holiday, JCM and Dogwatch are basically right. There is no reason why a negligent bolter could not be liable, in principle, for an accident caused by reliance on those bolts, although I can think of unusual scenarios where it might be arguable that no duty of care arises. The relevant current standard of care would likely be the BMC's best practice guidance or something close to. The reference made by Jim Titt to "volenti non fit injuria" is incorrect, although to be fair it's a mistake that many lawyers also make and the BMC referred to it in an old leaflet (now corrected). Volenti is a defence whereby there is no liability where a person has consented to the risk created by a negligent act, not simply where someone does any activity that carries some risk. So volenti would apply in the situation where, for instance, someone falls onto a bolt that they knew had been incorrectly placed before they decided to use it.
 Jon Stewart 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Although the tone of my post implied blame for the lawyers, that's not really how I feel about it. And I will freely admit that the argument I'm making is an emotional one taking climbing as a specific case which is meaningful for me, not an argument that I would like to see consistently applied. With that in mind, the argument goes like this:

I live in a world that is full of pricks. Everywhere I look I see corruption, greed and dishonesty all incentivised and endorsed by our capitalist system (I don't of course have any better alternative because the root cause of the corruption, greed and dishonesty is not capitalism, but human nature). When something goes wrong, someone is to blame, someone makes money out of the blame, and as a result the world becomes slightly worse than it was before.

As a response to this, I choose to go climbing, where as I see it, these ways of operating don't apply. These elements of human nature are not expressed. It's escapism in which the market has virtually no influence. Greed is not a factor. The relationships between people are genuine - we trust one another simply because we believe that they will do the right thing.

So, the idea of climbers taking each other to court (and as a consequence, the lawyers profiting, but that's by the by) is an encroachment into climbing of the world I seek to escape. As such it is the burning down of my playhouse.


[Please note that this is intended to be both melodramatic and humorous, although you may find it to be only the former. That said, I do mean it.]
2
 jimtitt 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


> Did you btw read or follow at the time the thread above concerning the well-known Australian climber killed in these circumstances? How anyone could say that making the perpetrators of the bolting there liable in those circumstances was 'the death of climbing' is beyond me.

> jcm

As far as I am aware the installers were not made "liable" in any way and no legal action was taken against them.
 UKB Shark 04 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:


In my mind there is an obvious moral duty to place good bolts when others are going to rely on them.

If there is a perceived legal obligation too then so much the better if that generally encourages better bolt placing.

If someone ends up paraplegic from a badly placed or unsuitable bolt failing then why shouldn't they attempt to sue for negligence to help cover the cost of a lifetime of disability and associated care costs.
Post edited at 23:22
1
 Jon Stewart 04 Dec 2016
In reply to ukb shark:
> In my mind there is an obvious moral duty to place good bolts when others are going to rely on them.

I agree.

> If there is a perceived legal obligation too then so much the better if that generally encourages better bolt placing.

I don't see the need - what is the evidence that there is a problem here to be addressed? How many cases of death and injury by incompetent bolting are we dealing with - is it just the one?

> If someone ends up paraplegic from a badly placed or unsuitable bolt failing then why shouldn't they attempt to sue for negligence to help cover the cost of a lifetime of disability and associated care costs.

Because it opens the door for a culture of blame within an area of life which is, as things stand free from it. Where this culture has taken hold, it has rotted the morality of our species.

Edit: I'm not actually bothered, I'll just continue not to bother sport climbing because if this is the culture of it, I don't want be part of it.
Post edited at 23:35
6
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>How many cases of death and injury by incompetent bolting are we dealing with - is it just the one?

No.

Rupert D was right about volenti above; I couldn't be bothered to point it out, but good on him.

jcm
In reply to jimtitt:

> As far as I am aware the installers were not made "liable" in any way and no legal action was taken against them.

No, that's right, I believe. The reasons no doubt included the facts that they were in Croatia and the event was in Australia, that they were insured, that the victim's family very properly didn't want to pursue it anyway, and that in Australia the position with regard to outdoors activities is covered by a specific statue discussed in the thread, whose detail I forget but which I think might well have excluded liability anyway.

However, my point of course was that they should have been liable and indeed in my view would have deserved imprisonment, not that Australian law made them so.

jcm
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I don't really follow the leap from describing the world as full of corruption, greed and Tories to the notion that where something goes wrong there must be someone to blame, that this must be the fault of lawyers and that they ought to be blamed for it especially since they get paid. For one thing, the purpose of the law is, in general, to restrain corruption and greed.

jcm
1
 Jon Stewart 04 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >How many cases of death and injury by incompetent bolting are we dealing with - is it just the one?
> No.

Even more reason not to go sport climbing

> Rupert D was right about volenti above; I couldn't be bothered to point it out, but good on him.

I don't doubt the legal and pragmatic case (that like it or not, this is going to happen so bolters beware), I just find it contrary to what I see as the spirit of climbing culture: you're the one climbing up a cliff, if it all goes tits up then that's tragic but don't look to blame others because you weren't at a leisure centre or in a theme park, you were up a f*cking cliff for crying out loud.
4
 Jon Stewart 05 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I don't really follow the leap from describing the world as full of corruption, greed and Tories to the notion that where something goes wrong there must be someone to blame,

The link is the money to be extracted from others through the process of assigning blame; that the capitalist system (corruption/greed/Tories if you like) is the engine behind the blame culture.

> that this must be the fault of lawyers and that they ought to be blamed for it especially since they get paid.

You missed it when I said twice that I didn't blame the lawyers, and haven't engaged at all with the conclusion.

> For one thing, the purpose of the law is, in general, to restrain corruption and greed.

Yes, which does not reflect at all well on human beings.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>you're the one climbing up a cliff, if it all goes tits up then that's tragic but don't look to blame others because you weren't at a leisure centre or in a theme park, you were up a f*cking cliff for crying out loud.

That's the sport climbing deal, though, isn't it? The bolts don't fail. If someone carelessly ensures that they do fail, then frankly, of course they're ******* liable. I don't really understand why this continues to be a subject of debate.

jcm
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You missed it when I said twice that I didn't blame the lawyers, and haven't engaged at all with the conclusion.

I didn't miss it. I tactfully ignored it on the grounds that it obviously wasn't true.

> Yes, which does not reflect at all well on human beings.

Not much does, in my experience.

jcm

 Jon Stewart 05 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> That's the sport climbing deal, though, isn't it? The bolts don't fail. If someone carelessly ensures that they do fail, then frankly, of course they're ******* liable. I don't really understand why this continues to be a subject of debate.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that a judge might find the bolter liable, you don't need to convince me any further. My objection is exactly as I have set out above: I would prefer climbing to be an area of life where I take full responsibility for the willfully dangerous, thrilling, stimulating, risky stuff I choose to do, and have no option of crying to mummy if I end up dead in the sea or paralysed from the neck down as a result of my own incompetence, stupidity or bad luck. Which I guess is why I go trad climbing on sea cliffs and get bored shitless at a sport crag.
Post edited at 00:18
3
 EddInaBox 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> In reply to ukb shark:
> > In my mind there is an obvious moral duty to place good bolts when others are going to rely on them.

> I agree.

So (inferring that the moral duty exists because of the inherent danger to others associated with a badly placed bolt) you seem to be saying that a reasonable person would expect someone placing a bolt to take care to do it well. That's a principle applied by the courts when it comes to negligence.

> I don't see the need - what is the evidence that there is a problem here to be addressed? How many cases of death and injury by incompetent bolting are we dealing with - is it just the one?

That might be because bad bolts don't tend to remain in place very long, perhaps they are removed when they are spotted by people who have the experience to make that judgement. Suppose, for the sake of exploring the argument, that someone bolted a route so badly that, although not obvious to the average climber upon visual inspection, any experienced person who new the method of installation would consider it dangerous (perhaps inappropriate bolt type or glue, improperly prepared or oversized hole etc.) and someone got hurt. By the argument that they should not be held legally accountable for their actions there is nothing to stop them doing the same thing again, there are people in all areas whose ambitions outweigh there competence and who will refuse to acknowledge this, there's no way to stop people like that taking it upon themselves to bolt routes, I think it important that there should be a way to stop them doing it twice.
 Jon Stewart 05 Dec 2016
In reply to EddInaBox:

> By the argument that they should not be held legally accountable for their actions there is nothing to stop them doing the same thing again...I think it important that there should be a way to stop them doing it twice.

I see no reason why we need to use the law here. I actively do not want the law involved, I want climbers to be able to relate to each other to sort out the problem as if they were actual normal human beings who cared about death and injury because of the suffering, not because there was a ruling against them.
 EddInaBox 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I support your sentiment, I don't see how it can address the problem of someone being either in denial about, or ignorant of, their lack of competence. 'Compensation culture' is shorthand for railing against the associated chancers who seek to take advantage with spurious or undeserving claims, but that doesn't mean that the principle of compensation for losses suffered is inherently wrong in itself; how can someone injured as a result of the actions of an incompetent person achieve redress? In the scenario suggested by another poster, where someone sustains life changing injuries that incur considerable costs, I don't believe it is in the common interest that the burden should be taken on by either the injured party or the state whilst the person responsible is able to completely escape the consequences of his or her actions and is free to do exactly the same again.
 Andy Say 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Scotch Bingington:

> Explain?

Well, you've got a local 'governing body' saying it doesn't want bolting in its 'territory' (if I understand the original post aright). That's not 'ironic' its just a case of principles being applied that they feel are correct.
 Andy Say 05 Dec 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I too have a tiny amount of training, and I agree that what is quoted could come straight out of a Ladybird guide to the law of negligence.

Meeeoow!

2
J1234 05 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Slightly different take.
I told a mate to be very careful Castleberg at Settle.
He said; " The BMC would not allow climbing there if it was not safe"
I very much doubt he is the only person who thinks this way.
 steveriley 05 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

The reality is none of us has a clue. Regardless of what we might want to happen or how we see ourselves as climbers taking responsibility for our own actions, none of this has (I don't think) been tested by case law. Everything else is wishful thinking.

A loose acquaintance in another sport had an accident that left him in a wheelchair. His insurance company chased the manufacturers, not him, to recover the cost of the payout (the case led to widespread design changes in the industry). However high the moral ground you see yourself occupying, an insurance company might take a different view.
 UKB Shark 05 Dec 2016
In reply to steveriley:
> The reality is none of us has a clue. Regardless of what we might want to happen or how we see ourselves as climbers taking responsibility for our own actions, none of this has (I don't think) been tested by case law. Everything else is wishful thinking.

Yes. I dont think anyone above has said what the outcome would be for certain, but there are certainly enough existing laws and precedents than could be drawn on to make a credible case for an injured climber to a sue a reckless bolter so I would say hardly clueless.

I can empathise (slightly) with the romanticism that Jon Stewart articulates that climbing should be in a special bubble with its own rules (ethics) but in reality that is not sufficient reasoning for it to operate outside the law.
Post edited at 09:41
 Dave Garnett 05 Dec 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

> I can empathise (slightly) with the romanticism that Jon Stewart articulates that climbing should be in a special bubble with its own rules (ethics) but in reality that is not sufficient reasoning for it to operate outside the law.

I empathise more than slightly with Jon on this but nevertheless I agree with the lawyers (and have argued this previously).

It could be argued this way. The massive difference between a dodgy bit of fixed gear on a trad route (or even a bit of old string vest dangling over a roof on an aid route for those old enough to climbed Revelations as God intended) and a sport route is that people clipping bolts have a reasonable expectation that they are safe and no way of testing this for themselves. A generation or two of indoor climbers have completely (quite reasonably) accepted this in the artificial indoor (and fee paying) environment and now adopt the same attitude outdoors.

What if, equipping a sport route, at least in a recognised sport climbing venue, carries with it an ongoing duty to inspect and maintain it to a safe standard? That would mean some sort of organisation adopting this responsibility and a landowner with a sport crag on his land might be wise to be thinking about making access conditional on getting an undertaking to this effect and making it unambiguously clear that by allowing access, not only was he was not responsible in the event of an accident resulting from gear failure but identifying who was. This is the inevitable consequence of converting a landscape feature into an venue engineered for a particular activity.

I'm aware that this won't be a popular view but look at this way.

a) A bolt is placed for the express purpose of safely arresting a fall. A climber has a reasonable expectation that it will fulfil this function.

b) At some point in the future, unless it is maintained or replaced, it will become dangerous and likely to fail.

c) This is entirely foreseeable.

d) If someone is injured or killed, whatever their views on responsibility and the acceptance of risk, either they will have no insurance and their dependants may have no option but to sue, or they will be insured and the insurance company will, as standard practice, sue in order to mitigate their losses.
 james mann 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Some really good points here. One of the main issues in terms of the maintenance of bolts is that the cost tends to fall largely on the first ascentionist rather than the users. This is one of the reasons why bolts which are cheaper and not of the highest quality have been placed at times. Maybe we, as a climbing community have to have a slightly different approach and instead of viewing sport climbing outside as a free (in terms of cost) activity, perhaps have to more willingly dip our hands into our pocket to pay for good bolts, glue, expertise etc. I am not suggesting charging people to climb but rather a greater willingness to donate. When we climb routes on our own placed gear, we (usually) make sure that there are no defects in that gear and that damaged or untrustworthy pieces are binned. Our attitude to bolts as a climbing community isn't quite the same in this regard.

What I am really saying is that if people want good quality, safe bolts, then they have to be prepared to change their point of view to the cost somewhat.

James
Andy Gamisou 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Well, you've got a local 'governing body' saying it doesn't want bolting in its 'territory' (if I understand the original post aright). That's not 'ironic' its just a case of principles being applied that they feel are correct.

I was probably being a bit misleading in how I worded my post. This isn't about climbing ethics. Their own website gives a history of climbing on the island that starts with, and is exclusively focussed on, sports climbing. It ignores the previous 30 years or so of trad climbing. They are all in favour of bolting - provided those doing it have paid to be 'trained' by one of their approved members (and provided various other criteria have been met). Good thing from a safety perspective? Maybe, depends on your view of their motives. Interestingly, the draft law as it is stated doesn't seem to clearly separate bolted routes from trad routes (or even boulder problems). So it is possible that establishing a new vdiff somewhere protected by nuts without their 'approval', then advertising it's existence, could incur the wrath of the law.

The proposal also forbids organised groups of walkers without the accompaniment of one of their guides. Or orienteering. Similar criminalisation and penalties applies.

I can't see the BMC supporting such proposals in the UK (maybe I'm wrong) never mind initiating them. Thus my use of the word 'irony'. Apologies for not being clearer but I was responding to legislation concerning bolting abroad so didn't mention the other stuff. And in fact there's still a whole bunch or climbing, walking and orienteering bits that I 've not covered.
In reply to Dave Garnett:

The scenario you describe would be fantastic in an ideal world, but working for a land management body which has responsibility for several crags with fixed gear, I can tell you that the resources needed to maintain and inspect all bolted routes in the country would be non-trivial to say the least.

The current approach taken adopts a principle of shared responsibility. Through education we seek to inform climbers so that they can sport climb as safely as possible. For example, our subsidised indoor-outdoor courses, and website articles and features. An army of informed and knowledgeable climbers makes for a pretty useful inspection team in itself.

In addition to this,we've supported equippers and bolt funds in recent years with free high quality bolts, advice and training. Our legal advisors have informed us that the person installing a bolt has a duty of care to those coming after them, and we have advised and supported people accordingly.

The bottom line is that if you use suitable equipment conforming to EN959 or equivalent, take care to choose the right type of bolt for the environment (rock type, local corrosion conditions) and then install it competently, then in the unlikely but possible chance you end up in court explaining your actions, you can claim that you met your duty of care by following good practice.

I won't repeat Ruperts and ukbsharks's comments on liability and BMC insurance coverage for bolters other than to say both are correct to the best of my knowledge.
 jimtitt 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I empathise more than slightly with Jon on this but nevertheless I agree with the lawyers (and have argued this previously).

> It could be argued this way. The massive difference between a dodgy bit of fixed gear on a trad route (or even a bit of old string vest dangling over a roof on an aid route for those old enough to climbed Revelations as God intended) and a sport route is that people clipping bolts have a reasonable expectation that they are safe and no way of testing this for themselves. A generation or two of indoor climbers have completely (quite reasonably) accepted this in the artificial indoor (and fee paying) environment and now adopt the same attitude outdoors.

> What if, equipping a sport route, at least in a recognised sport climbing venue, carries with it an ongoing duty to inspect and maintain it to a safe standard? That would mean some sort of organisation adopting this responsibility and a landowner with a sport crag on his land might be wise to be thinking about making access conditional on getting an undertaking to this effect and making it unambiguously clear that by allowing access, not only was he was not responsible in the event of an accident resulting from gear failure but identifying who was. This is the inevitable consequence of converting a landscape feature into an venue engineered for a particular activity.

> I'm aware that this won't be a popular view but look at this way.

> a) A bolt is placed for the express purpose of safely arresting a fall. A climber has a reasonable expectation that it will fulfil this function.

> b) At some point in the future, unless it is maintained or replaced, it will become dangerous and likely to fail.

> c) This is entirely foreseeable.

> d) If someone is injured or killed, whatever their views on responsibility and the acceptance of risk, either they will have no insurance and their dependants may have no option but to sue, or they will be insured and the insurance company will, as standard practice, sue in order to mitigate their losses.

It should be noted that JCM is arguing what the law MIGHT decide in the future, until now the law in a number of countries has decided that there is no legal responsibility for equippers of routes, for example the state prosecuter in Bavaria was of the opinion there was no case to answer in the infamous Sigi bolt affair which caused the death of a climber. The OP asked what are the "legal responsibilities/liabilities" and until a judgement is made otherwise then there are none.

Your point about a newer generation of climbers and their expectations is a good one and highly relevant to those of us actively bolting new routes. Due to the variabilities and the traditions of outdoor climbing I don´ t know any equipper who, if the expectation of climbers is a level of safety (and convenience) equal to indoor climbing walls would continue to develop cliffs. Additionally if the expectation is that the original equipper by placing a bolt is somehow taking on a duty to maintain or guarantee safety for other users with the consequences that they could face legal action for failing to do so then all the equippers I know would immediately remove their bolts.
Whether the climbing community want to change "outdoors" to " like indoors with weather" or keep sport climbing as a half-way house between adventure climbing and climbing walls has not yet been decided.

The desire that a minimum standard should be that installers have attended a training course is understandable but fails to appreciate a number of factors.
Firstly, a large number of the accidents that have occured have involved persons who had received training, in fact most of the incidents I am aware of which is inevitable since they are clearly more actively bolting but never the less an indication that attending a training course is not the solution.
Secondly, who provides the training? Currently anyone can organise and give training courses no matter their competence since installation of bolts for recreational climbing is not covered by any law and there are no standards for installation. If training was to become a requirement then the the logical course to follow would be that of the rope access industry where European law specifies who can train installers, that is the manufacturer or their appointed agents. Not the BMC or anyone else.
As James Mann has pointed out, if the climbing community want these levels of security then they will have to establish a fund-raising system to cover the considerable extra costs which will be involved.
 deepsoup 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Lenin:
> He said; " The BMC would not allow climbing there if it was not safe"
> I very much doubt he is the only person who thinks this way.

That's slightly alarming. Did you manage to correct your mate's misapprehension?
Is he aware of the BMC's "Participation Statement", do you think?

in full it reads:
"The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions."

It's front and centre in just about everything they ever publish - I don't think they could do much more to make it clear that they regard your (mate's) safety as your (mate's) business.
Post edited at 13:16
J1234 05 Dec 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

You know those T&Cs that google and apple get you to agree to, do you read them?

I do not know what more could be done though.
 Dave Garnett 05 Dec 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

> "The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions."

Do you seriously think the majority of sport climbers today accept that what they do carries a real risk of serious injury or death?
 UKB Shark 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Do you seriously think the majority of sport climbers today accept that what they do carries a real risk of serious injury or death?

Even if they don't they bloody well should do. That sort of blasé attitude is the root cause of many needless sport climbing accidents I'm sure.

If there was litigation then one of the main defences would likley be that climbing and even sport climbing is an obviously risky thing to do and the responsibility therefore lies with the climber for participating rather than the Bolter.

If I recall correctly that was the line the judge took in the Poppleton case and that was just indoor bouldering (of a fashion).
 deepsoup 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> Do you seriously think the majority of sport climbers today accept that what they do carries a real risk of serious injury or death?

Erm.. well, yes, of course. Even climbing indoors carries a real risk of serious injury or death (albeit a small one), let alone clipping bolts in some grotty old quarry.

And as above, if they don't then they bloody well should.

But it's hardly unique to climbing, and it isn't a difficult concept to get one's head around. Rugby players do it, horse riders do it, surfers, gymnasts, kayakers... There are loads of activities where participants need to understand that they might get hurt, even killed, and the risk is theirs to take.
 Andy Say 05 Dec 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

> Even if they don't they bloody well should do. That sort of blasé attitude is the root cause of many needless sport climbing accidents I'm sure.

But, let's face it, people 'sport climb' because it IS perceived as safe and they can therefore push their climbing to its limit without fearing death. That is the essence of sport climbing. It is the raison d'etre behind bolting.

Trad climbing is perceived as risky because those little metal things might pop out or there might be no holes in the rock to put the little metal things into.
 paul mitchell 05 Dec 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

So many climbers expect a service from new routers,while they contribute nothing themselves.
I don't want climbing to be regulated by legislation. As for narcissistic climbers bolting up piles of crap,surely there is NO such person in the UK today?!
 Toerag 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> So, the idea of climbers taking each other to court (and as a consequence, the lawyers profiting, but that's by the by) is an encroachment into climbing of the world I seek to escape. As such it is the burning down of my playhouse.

The problem is not the injured / killed climbers - it's their family and insurance companies that will come after you for everything that you have.
 1poundSOCKS 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> But, let's face it, people 'sport climb' because it IS perceived as safe and they can therefore push their climbing to its limit without fearing death. That is the essence of sport climbing.

I perceive it as being safer than trad overall, but I wouldn't extend that to all situations, does depend on the crag to a large extent, but also to the specific route. I always try to take my own safety in my own hands as much as possible. I've backed off a route before because of a suspect looking bolt, and not done routes where the low bolts look badly spaced.

> It is the raison d'etre behind bolting.

Bolts can be placed because it's better than little or no protection. Or because any protection would be in loose rock, so it's become unpopular for trad. Doesn't mean bolted climbing is always safe. I started sport climbing outdoors at Giggleswick, and from the start it felt like there was a definite element of danger. Loose blocks and second/third bolts a bit too run out (maybe due to loose rock again).
In reply to andyb211:

Haven't read half of this but got the idea. Sitting in Cheddar after a day bolt clipping discussing.

Liability for in-situ threads. Where does the law stand. You did a new route with threads and publicised it. Where would you stand. Exactly the same outcome as if it were a bolt...?
1
 jon 05 Dec 2016
In reply to paul mitchell:

> As for narcissistic climbers bolting up piles of crap,surely there is NO such person in the UK today?!



Andy Gamisou 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> But, let's face it, people 'sport climb' because it IS perceived as safe and they can therefore push their climbing to its limit without fearing death.

I get your point, but I 've had more genuinely close calls in the last 3 years pushing the envelope sports climbing than I had in several years trad climbing. It all comes down to how hard you push and how often you fall. I almost never fell trad climbing (3 times in 10 years). I often fall 4 or 5 times a session sports climbing. Each individual fall is low risk sport climbing, but multiply by the number taken when you go out 2 to 3 tines a week.... I could give examples but the last time I tried to make this point I was accused of basically lying...

 UKB Shark 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> But, let's face it, people 'sport climb' because it IS perceived as safe and they can therefore push their climbing to its limit without fearing death. That is the essence of sport climbing. It is the raison d'etre behind bolting.


It is safer relative to trad climbing but is not a safe activity in absolute terms. It is also generally unlikely to be viewed as a safe activity by the general public sitting on a jury, or a judge, or a 'working at heights' expert witness (or by me for that matter).

Aside from other ways from injuring yourself whilst sport climbing it is known that bolts can and do fail and are of variable age and quality so participating in the activity may be viewed as accepting personal responsibility for bolt failure and bad outcomes. I expect there is a latin legal term for that.
 EddInaBox 05 Dec 2016
In reply to sam.sam.sam.ferguson:

> Liability for in-situ threads. Where does the law stand. You did a new route with threads and publicised it. Where would you stand. Exactly the same outcome as if it were a bolt...?

The climber can (and should) inspect the state of any thread themselves, the legal test would probably be something along the lines of 'is the risk of relying on a thread placed by someone else obvious to a reasonable person, would a reasonable person think it important to inspect such a thread before relying on it' any climber failing to do that would (all other things being equal) have brought the consequences of any failure upon himself. The difference when it comes to relying on a bolt is that a climber cannot tell anything about the state of the bolt beyond the small amount he can see, he is reliant on an appropriate bolt being used and that the bolt was placed well, the only person who can tell that is the person who placed it, if at the time it was placed it was placed in accordance with recognised best practice then the arguments from those better qualified to answer the question that me would suggest the bolter would not be liable for failure through deterioration over time.
 Ramblin dave 05 Dec 2016
In reply to ukb shark:
> Aside from other ways from injuring yourself whilst sport climbing it is known that bolts can and do fail and are of variable age and quality so participating in the activity may be viewed as accepting personal responsibility for bolt failure and bad outcomes. I expect there is a latin legal term for that.

I'm not a sport climber, but I'd expect a climber to be prepared for corroded or worn bolts or loose hangers or old shitty bolts or bolts placed in snappy rock, to keep half an eye out for them and to make some sort of judgement call when they find them, but also for them to be somewhat surprised and upset if an entire line of new, shiny solid-looking bolts turns out to be held in with blu-tack or something. And in the latter case I'd say that the danger has gone beyond what the climber could reasonably expect (so the latin term doesn't apply) and the bolter has been negligent.

Is that fair?
Post edited at 17:01
 UKB Shark 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:


That would be my view.

 Oliver Houston 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Agreed, I don't think the law would be able to impose any conditions on maintenance of bolts. If a bolt fails after 20+ years, then it has served its active lifespan. Similarly if a bolt (say a lower-off) is sufficiently worn through to be obviously dangerous, then the climber would be expected to have figured that out on their own and not relied on the protection. The only time I can see a claim having any chance of success is when bolts or the rock they are placed in fail within a year of their placement due to poor placement.
I think (possibly hope) that the law would expect climbers to have learnt how to climb and what to expect before they blindly start relying on bolts to keep them off the ground.
Further, if a bolt/route was believed to be dangerous, then it would be fairly easy to mitigate liability by warning others of potential danger. A sign on the 1st hanger would be enough to make it clear to climbers that they shouldn't rely on the protection (or a tag, with an explanation at the approach).

Saying all this, it's purely academic as despite of some of the choss that has been bolted, no one has ever felt the need to test the responsibility of the bolters in court. Whether this is because all our bolters are amazing, or because the climbing bubble is full of people who don't want to sue each other is anyone's guess.
 Dave Garnett 05 Dec 2016
In reply to Oliver Houston:

> I think (possibly hope) that the law would expect climbers to have learnt how to climb and what to expect before they blindly start relying on bolts to keep them off the ground.

I think that a good many climbers who have learnt how to climb exceptionally well have a well-founded expectation that they can rely on bolts to keep them off the ground. That's exactly the problem. It's not blind to rely on something if there's no way of seeing if there's anything wrong with it.

This isn't a massive problem currently because sport climbing is relatively new in this country (yes, really, I can remember when there wasn't any and you had to go to France to do it). However, give it another 10 years or so and that might change.
 Jim 1003 06 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:
There would be no legal fallback because nobody could ever prove what abuse the bolt had been subjected to by third parties prior to any accident, thus allowing the bolter an easily manufactured defence.
For example, somebody could have tried to remove the bolt and weakened it just prior to any accident.
Post edited at 00:23
 EddInaBox 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> For example, somebody could have tried to remove the bolt and weakened it just prior to any accident.

They could have, but in a civil case (which is what we are talking about here since the original post mentions liabilities) it comes down to balance of probabilities, if the claimant gets an expert witness to state that the bolt was improperly placed then that would probably outweigh a claim that it could have been damaged by someone else, unless there was evidence to back up such an assertion.
 Jim 1003 06 Dec 2016
In reply to EddInaBox:
> They could have, but in a civil case (which is what we are talking about here since the original post mentions liabilities) it comes down to balance of probabilities, if the claimant gets an expert witness to state that the bolt was improperly placed then that would probably outweigh a claim that it could have been damaged by someone else, unless there was evidence to back up such an assertion.

It is for the claimant to prove the case...the expert would have to be able to deal with the fact the bolt could have been damaged by somebody other then the person who placed it. He would also have to deal with faulty manufacture allegations from the defence and so it goes on....
Post edited at 01:22
1
 Misha 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
If someone bolts a route, it might be with a view to a FA but most of the time it's also for other people to climb (unless it's a very high end route or in a really obscure location, such that no one or hardly anyone else would try doing it). If you're installing equipment for other people to use, I struggle to see how there could NOT be a duty of care on some level. Would you expect a brand new set of stairs to be fit for purpose and not collapse under you?

However you then have to look at what's reasonable in the context. I'm not a lawyer but from the little I know it seems that the British courts are quite keen on the concept of reasonableness. It is well known that equipment deteriorates over time (especially near the sea or where there is frequent seepage), while rock can weaken over time (particularly limestone). Besides, climbing is an inherently dangerous activity which calls for ongoing risk assessment.

So I suspect that, if there is an accident where a bolt or anchor fails and a claim is made, there would be a review of the circumstances and a consideration of what is reasonable. At one extreme, it's not reasonable to expect a rusty 20 year old bolt to take a big fall. At the other extreme, it is reasonable to expect a brand new lower off to hold, so if it pulls out shortly after being put in place due to some monumental incompetence on the bolter's part, I suspect a court would want to look into that. In between is a large grey area.

Climbing is dangerous and self-reliant, while bolts and potentially rock can weaken over time, so you'd think the courts would approach this in a sensible way, htake on board expert witness evidence and only support the claim if there has been clear negligence, but who knows?

There is also the very practical question of whether the bolter can be identified. The FA is usually known but the FA won't necessarily have done the bolting. Even if they did, how could this be proven, unless there is something in writing such as a blog post saying 'today I bolted such and such new route'? Besides, many routes have seen several rounds of rebolting over the years and even if there are only a few people involved in rebolting in a particular area, how can the particular person responsible be identified?

Bolts and lower offs can also get damaged over time by people misusing them or rockfall. Equipment failure is also a possibility, for example a manufacturing defect in a bolt or a tube of glue which isn't immediately obvious to the user. All reasons why the bolter might have nothing to do with an accident.

The real point is this though. We all need to take care, even on sport routes and particularly when it comes to either very recent routes (loose rock / snappy holds could be an issue for a start) or ageing gear. However I'm sure the vast majority of the bolters in this country are competent and keen to make sure that their bolting is safe. No one wants an accident or a fatality on their conscience. This is one of the reasons that bolt or lower off failure of any kind (and particularly due to poor installation) is so rare. However if someone is knowingly or even unknowingly incompetent, I should think they could be held liable.

I agree such a case might not be good for climbing generally, same as any duty of care / negligence case relating to climbing. Consider this though: if there is a life changing injury or a fatality, the victim or their family might have no choice but to pursue a large compensation claim - the victim might need 24 hour care, small children might need dressing, loss of earnings might need to be made good... That is the reality.
Post edited at 01:52
1
 EddInaBox 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

You don't seem to understand the relationship between expert witnesses and the court, the rôle of an expert witness is to assist the court, not to give evidence on behalf of one side or the other. There may be a single expert witness instructed jointly (and initially paid for) by both sides. If the defendant were to claim that the bolt was damaged by a third party but the expert witness says that the failure was probably down to improper installation then the court will be guided by that opinion. It isn't enough just to have a plausible alternative explanation.
 La benya 06 Dec 2016
In reply to EddInaBox:

Jim has asserted before that he is an expert crash investigator and gets called into courts all the time. But I agree with you.
 paul mitchell 06 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

There are thousands of rusting and spinning bolts in the u k.Climbers can often see the state of the bolts before they set off.They often know that bolts are not in prime condition but choose to go up anyway.
One thing is to take some wires and cams to back up dodgy bolts,but of course climbers want to save weight.You are accepting the POSSIBILITY of bolts failing when you leave the ground,even if they look solid.Bolts on popular routes
take a right battering.No surprise that they work loose,bend etc. The climber has to take responsibility for their own risk.Not the first ascensionist. Assume the first ascensionist has died of old age and a bolt fails.Where lies the responsibility,in law? The climber is responsible for their own risk.If bolts look dodgy you should be lowering off gently if you think they might fail.
 EddInaBox 06 Dec 2016
In reply to paul mitchell:

> ... Assume the first ascensionist has died of old age and a bolt fails.Where lies the responsibility,in law?

The scenario where there is no one to claim against because the bolter (who is not necessarily the first assencionist) has died, doesn't have any effect on the question of whether a bolter who is still alive could be liable if someone were to be injured as a result of the failure of a bolt they installed improperly.
 Dave Garnett 06 Dec 2016
In reply to paul mitchell:
> There are thousands of rusting and spinning bolts in the u k.Climbers can often see the state of the bolts before they set off.They often know that bolts are not in prime condition but choose to go up anyway.

> One thing is to take some wires and cams to back up dodgy bolts,but of course climbers want to save weight.You are accepting the POSSIBILITY of bolts failing when you leave the ground,even if they look solid.

As I've said I think this is partly a generational thing, with younger climbers having implicitly assumed the safety of bolts both indoor (reasonably) and outdoor (maybe not). It's also partly the difference between those who have only ever climbed on bolts (where they, realistically, have little or no responsibility for the safety of the protection) and those who have some experience of trad (where the leader carries 100% of the responsibility for the gear, and uses their own judgement as to its reliability and the level of risk they are prepared to take on each occasion). You never really lose that trad mindset, even when climbing on bolts - which is why I'm so crap because I just don't ever feel I completely trust the gear.

However, how many times recently, on this forum, have we been told that we should be practising leader falls in order to get comfortable with trusting the gear completely? What sort of cognitive dissonance is required to square that with your (very sound) advice that we should always assume the possibility that the bolt might fail?

I don't know what the answer is. I completely get that if we really take this seriously, the implications both legally and financially are huge. I love the general lack of rules and overwhelming assumption of individual responsibility that climbing embodies. I just don't see how, given the general expansion of the sport in the direction of bolted leading, we can ignore the risk of creating the illusion of risk-free, climb to your limit, if you're not falling you're failing, outdoor gymnastics. It's probably too difficult, at least until someone gets killed and someone gets sued.
Post edited at 11:25
1
 Jon Stewart 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:
> I struggle to see how there could NOT be a duty of care on some level. Would you expect a brand new set of stairs to be fit for purpose and not collapse under you?

Yes. How would I react if it did collapse? Depends on the context: if I was in Debenhams and they were trying to extract as much money out of me as possibly while I was on their premises, I might consider taking them to court. If I'd decided to play in a treehouse in the woods that was generally known about amongst treehouse enthusiasts, but wasn't connected in any way to any formal organisation, it was just built by an individual for their own and others' enjoyment, then I would not try to track them down and sue them, because to do so would make me a total prick, no matter how bad my injuries. Debenhams were trying to extract money out of me with their stairs, have millions in the bank to pay me compensation, and don't give a f*ck about the fact that I'll never walk again. The treehouse enthusiast on the other hand...

> I agree such a case might not be good for climbing generally, same as any duty of care / negligence case relating to climbing. Consider this though: if there is a life changing injury or a fatality, the victim or their family might have no choice but to pursue a large compensation claim - the victim might need 24 hour care, small children might need dressing, loss of earnings might need to be made good... That is the reality.

I might view it this way. The same could equally happen to me going trad climbing, and I've got no one to blame, yet the consequences are exactly the same and they will just have to be dealt with. If in sport climbing, such a claim can be made, then that to me is a dangerous divergence: it's essentially regulation and this needs to be funded; paving the way for sport crags with turnstiles.
Post edited at 12:56
1
 1poundSOCKS 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

There is a kind of real life hybrid scenario, well sort of. The routes at Castleberg are named after the local shops, who I believe paid for the bolts (might be very wrong here, but otherwise why name the routes after them?).
 Jim 1003 06 Dec 2016
In reply to EddInaBox:
> You don't seem to understand the relationship between expert witnesses and the court, the r£le of an expert witness is to assist the court, not to give evidence on behalf of one side or the other. There may be a single expert witness instructed jointly (and initially paid for) by both sides. If the defendant were to claim that the bolt was damaged by a third party but the expert witness says that the failure was probably down to improper installation then the court will be guided by that opinion. It isn't enough just to have a plausible alternative explanation.

Bollocks, the expert would have to be able to assert that the bolt was not damaged by anybody else. How they could do that when anybody could have taken a spanner to it and tightened or loosened,taken it out or and put it back in again would would make it virtually impossible for them.
Experts get cross examined you know!
Judge, 'Can you discount the fact somebody has taken this bolt out and replaced it, after it was first placed?'
Expert, 'No I can't actually.'
Thanks, case dismissed.

Get a grip Mrs Box....
Post edited at 13:11
 Jon Stewart 06 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

There are loads of possible ways that bolting can be funded - I'm only concerned that it's through voluntary cooperation, people acting as communities, rather than allowing in any market forces. Once people start suing one another, then insurance against that is needed and the sport is f*cked.
1
 1poundSOCKS 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm only concerned that it's through voluntary cooperation, people acting as communities, rather than allowing in any market forces.

I know.

Nice to see shops bolting dangerous choss, the polar opposite of Cliff bar stopping sponsorship of soloists.
 Jon Stewart 06 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Nice to see shops bolting dangerous choss, the polar opposite of Cliff bar stopping sponsorship of soloists.

Ha!
 EddInaBox 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Judge, 'Can you discount the fact somebody has taken this bolt out and replaced it, after it was first placed?'

You really don't get how the courts work do you, it isn't down to the judge to cross examine? If the defence claims that the bolt has been damaged or replaced since it was placed then the judge would have to weigh up any evidence presented, it is then decided on the balance of probability, not 'reasonable doubt'.
 Jim 1003 06 Dec 2016
In reply to EddInaBox:

> You really don't get how the courts work do you, it isn't down to the judge to cross examine? If the defence claims that the bolt has been damaged or replaced since it was placed then the judge would have to weigh up any evidence presented, it is then decided on the balance of probability, not 'reasonable doubt'.

I've been asked questions by Judges loads of times, you haven't got a clue.
If you are an expert then you would have to include in your assessment the fact that any damage was down to the defendant not some random passerby who decided to replace a bolt, tighten it up incorrectly, never mind all the other possible scenarios that could have happened.
Better not to comment than talk rubbish.
 Ramblin dave 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Bollocks, the expert would have to be able to assert that the bolt was not damaged by anybody else. How they could do that when anybody could have taken a spanner to it and tightened or loosened,taken it out or and put it back in again would would make it virtually impossible for them.

> Experts get cross examined you know!

> Judge, 'Can you discount the fact somebody has taken this bolt out and replaced it, after it was first placed?'

> Expert, 'No I can't actually.'

Judge: "and how often do people randomly remove new, properly placed bolts from routes and replace them with dangerous ones?"

Expert: "in my experience, pretty much never."

And since we're talking about "balance of probabilities" for civil liability rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", the fact that we can't prove definitively that this incredibly unlikely event didn't occur is pretty much irrelevant.
 sheppy 06 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

As someone who has faced a legal claim over an "alleged bolt failure" I thought I would chip in my experience.
Also its an interesting reflection on how the legal system works.
Act 1: In the early 90's I received out of the blue a solicitors letter stating that a client they represented had been seriously injured at a local climbing venue due to the failure of a bolt that I had allegedly placed.
This raised immediate concern as the route mentioned was definitely one I had equipped several years earlier. Their client had been badly injured and faced a premature end to his career in the Royal Marines. I sped out to the crag and abbed down the route in question....
All bolts present and correct. No failures nor defects.
My solicitor responded and I relaxed.
Act 2: A short while later another letter arrived, ahhh they were mistaken the first time it was actually a lower off carabiner that had failed. Luckily the originals I had placed were all stolen and the krabs adorning the route had been left by parties unknown. My solicitor again responded and we thought it was over and done with.
Act 3: Again after a few weeks another letter arrived stating that as I was the writer of that section of the guidebook they would sue me anyway for "encouraging" their client to climb there!

Finally after spending £190 on solicitors it was put in the hands of the free personal legal protection that came with my household policy. They were outstanding and killed it dead but it was a worrying time.

Our own suspicions were that the guy had been dropped by his belayer and was needing cash to cushion being booted from the forces.

I have maintained MC of S membership ever since which provides personal cover like the BMC.

Incidentally those resin bolts are still in that route and as far as I am aware still functioning well!



 Andy Say 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Bollocks, the expert would have to be able to assert that the bolt was not damaged by anybody else. How they could do that when anybody could have taken a spanner to it and tightened or loosened,taken it out or and put it back in again would would make it virtually impossible for them.


No they wouldn't. The witness would testify on the balance of probabilities. 'Person x placed 6 bolts on this route on xx/xx/xxxx. In my opinion those bolts are in their original state and failure occurred as a result of improper placement' is going to be fairly clear. Certainly a defending barrister might use the line how do you know that they were not tampered with. Witness - 'Climbers generally don't mess with bolts/as far as I can see this is the original bolt placed in the same way as the others'. The possibility that someone 'might' have removed a bolt and 'might' have replaced it would be considered by the judge but the minimal likelihood of that event would also be considered by the judge.
 Michael Hood 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Although I agree with your altruistic view, I fear that the day will come (not too far away), when someone will get sued for bolt failure or something similar. It's unfortunately a consequence of our increasingly litigious society where every accident needs to have someone or something to blame.

However, I can see that with sport climbing, it would be possible to sue on the grounds of negligence in certain circumstances. If I, as an experienced climber, but as a complete novice bolter, went and bolted a route such that the bolts fell out the following week leading to serious injury or death, then I can't really see how I'd avoid being negligent.

Reasonableness would surely say that because I was experienced (and provably active on UKC), I would surely know about the possible risks and BMC initiatives to promote safe bolting, and that in ignoring those I would be negligent.

Lets hope it doesn't actually come to pass, especially me bolting anything
Post edited at 15:35
 Andy Say 06 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Lets look at a, purely hypothetical, situation.

Climber x is known as someone who places lots and lots of bolts. They are familiar with good practice. One day they drill and place bolts on a new route but neglect to check whether their glue gun is functioning correctly. Unfortunately it wasn't and no hardener was mixed with the epoxy resin.

Climber y arrives to try this new route a couple of weeks later. They do OK until the third bolt when they just cant read the sequence so they go to rest on the bolt. The bolt simply slides out of the 'jelly' holding it the hole. Climber y hits the ground and is so badly injured that they cannot work again. They have a wife and children.

Climber y goes to a firm of solicitors.

Do they:
A. Say 'no way Jose - you were climbing and its dead dangerous, everyone knows that. Send the missus out to work'.
B. Say ' do you have some kind of insurance that will look after your dependants; you'd probably better rely on that'.
C. Say 'well we think that we can certainly get in a sharp barrister to say that through their negligence climber x ruined your life and is clearly guilty of a breach of care'.

Answers on a postcard......
 Andy Say 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> I've been asked questions by Judges loads of times, you haven't got a clue.

> If you are an expert then you would have to include in your assessment the fact that any damage was down to the defendant not some random passerby who decided to replace a bolt, tighten it up incorrectly, never mind all the other possible scenarios that could have happened.

I think you are confusing 'cross-examination' with 'the court seeking additional information'.

> Better not to comment than talk rubbish.
 wercat 06 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Surely all it would take would be a single intervening winter and spring season to break the causal link had the bolts been properly installed originally. Any honest expert presumably would have to say something of what happens to rock when expansion of freezing water and contraction of melting ice enter the equation. As with normal rock surely caution is needed when bolts are first approached after winter "just in case". Weathering is after all an uncertain process with a random chance element
 Dogwatch 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Climber y goes to a firm of solicitors.

> Do they:

> A. Say 'no way Jose - you were climbing and its dead dangerous, everyone knows that. Send the missus out to work'.

> B. Say ' do you have some kind of insurance that will look after your dependants; you'd probably better rely on that'.

> C. Say 'well we think that we can certainly get in a sharp barrister to say that through their negligence climber x ruined your life and is clearly guilty of a breach of care'.

> Answers on a postcard......

Or even, climber Y does have insurance. Does the insurance company:

A. Cheerfully pay up.

B. Wonder who else they can get to pay instead. Like Climber X and/or his insurers.

Once you make an insurance claim, you've lost control of the situation. It's up to your insurer to decide if they want to try to recover their costs from elsewhere.

 La benya 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

Like i said, Jim's made this claim before and has been equally confused in his previous comments.

90% of the time 'expert witness' is in written form. It is produced by whichever side wants it, submitted to the court/ other side. If its agreed it isn't necessary to question the expert. if the opposition wishes to probe, an expert may be called on.
 toad 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Dogwatch:

> Or even, climber Y does have insurance. Does the insurance company:

> A. Cheerfully pay up.

> B. Wonder who else they can get to pay instead. Like Climber X and/or his insurers.

> Once you make an insurance claim, you've lost control of the situation. It's up to your insurer to decide if they want to try to recover their costs from elsewhere.

And if they are insured through the BMC?

This question has been needling me since the start of this thread
 sheppy 06 Dec 2016
In reply to wercat:

Properly placed bolts are not so badly affected by this process that it could be used as any form of defence.
Maybe many winters down the line perhaps but by that time the manufacturers warranty will have expired. (commonly three years) and little could be proved to be negligence. Except the user not checking the bolts condition of course.
 La benya 06 Dec 2016
In reply to toad:

no ones actually insured by the BMC. No idea who the underwriter is
 Andy Say 06 Dec 2016
In reply to toad:

Interesting. If 'climber y' is a BMC member will the free third party liability insurance cover him for a negligent act?
 Andy Say 06 Dec 2016
In reply to La benya:

> no ones actually insured by the BMC. No idea who the underwriter is

All BMC members have third party liability insurance (with some caveats) as a free member benefit. Broker is Perkins Slade; they will have laid that off to another insurer. Can't remember who that is right now; I think they are on the third company in 8 years now?
 La benya 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

yes so the member is covered by the BMC policy, they arent acting as the insurer.

 EddInaBox 06 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> I've been asked questions by Judges loads of times...

And yet you repeatedly seem to make errors in your description of how the court process works.

> If you are an expert then you would have to include in your assessment the fact that any damage was down to the defendant not some random passerby who decided to replace a bolt, tighten it up incorrectly, never mind all the other possible scenarios that could have happened.

Who is talking about damage? If there were some kind of damage then obviously that could provide a possible defence, it would be up to the claimant to persuade the court that either the damage was not the reason for the failure or that the defendant was responsible for that damage. However since none of this has ever been tested in court and we are dealing with entirely hypothetical scenarios, your categorical assertion that there is no way judgement would be made against the defendant because they just have to say 'wasn't me' lacks anything to back it up other than your self professed expertise in the matter, and is contrary to the more cogently expressed arguments of others on this thread.
1
 Misha 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Trad is obviously different in that you generally place your own gear, in which case you can only have yourself to blame if it rips. As for pegs and threads, they are known to be less reliable than bolts, especially after a few years, you generally can't choose where to place them and some placements will be inherently dodgy as you have to use what's available. Hence unlikely to be anywhere the same level of duty of care for whoever placed the in situ gear, it's much more a case of self reliance and personal judgement.

There is a duty of care in other aspects of course, such as belaying properly, taking reasonable steps to avoid dislodging loose rock, appropriate route choice when climbing with less experienced people and so on.
 Misha 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:
Pretty hard (impossible?) to remove a bolt and place a new one in exactly the same spot.

Don't think it would be the judge cross examining the expert witness by the way, that's what QCs (or other legal reps) are for.
 UKB Shark 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:

> Pretty hard (impossible?) to remove a bolt and place a new one in exactly the same spot.


I think he must mean replacing a hanger which isn't strictly speaking replacing a bolt.

 jon 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:
> Pretty hard (impossible?) to remove a bolt and place a new one in exactly the same spot.

No, it's possible - even regular expansion bolts - but a lot of faff. The Yanks are pretty obsessed with re-using the original holes. Have a look on SuperTopo and you'll find hours of reading on it. But as Shark says, he probably doesn't mean that...?
Post edited at 08:42
 Jim 1003 07 Dec 2016
In reply to EddInaBox:

It's you who makes errors about how the court process works, judges ask questions all the time. Can you just clarify that you don't think judges ask questions of witnesses? Because here's a quote from the CPS advice to people giving evidence and it appears they think judges will ask questions;
Here's the link http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/going_to_court/giving_evidence.html

tests your evidence to make sure it really proves something.
You may also be asked questions by a magistrate, the clerk or the judge. In the Crown Court the jury can write down questions for the judge to read out.

Do try not to post utter garbage....
 Jim 1003 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:
As Jon said you can replace a bolt, and I did mean replace the whole bolt, because that would have to be discounted in any court case, along with a myriad of other things before you could get anywhere near a prosecution.
Post edited at 19:14
 Misha 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:
> As Jon said you can replace a bolt, and I did mean replace the whole bolt, because that would have to be discounted in any court case, along with a myriad of other things before you could get anywhere near a prosecution.

Not convinced. There are far better defences - corrosion of the bolt/hanger or weakening of the rock being the obvious ones for bolts which have been in place for a while. Damage of the bolt stud /hanger through rock fall is also a possibility.

However arguing that someone else might have taken out a (good) bolt and replaced it with a dodgy one in exactly the same hole is pretty far fetched. For a start, people just don't do that! Besides, how likely is someone to replace a bolt with one of the same make, model and vintage? If the defence tried to argue that someone had replaced the bolt, the prosecution would surely remove the other bolts from the route and demonstrate that they are all the same. Possible that the entire route got rebolted using the same holes and model/vintage of bolt but how likely is that? A replacement bolt should be obvious as it would be newer. In practice, bolt failure through dodgy bolting is likely to occur fairly soon after a route has been put up. How likely is someone to replace a recently placed bolt with another one in the same spot?

If a route has actually been rebolted, that's a different argument altogether and there may be evidence to demonstrate rebolting, e.g. if the FA was 20 years ago but the bolts look like they are pretty recent.

What I'm saying is arguing that one particular bolt got randomly replaced with a duff one is not a line of argument I'd want to rely on - unless that was actually the case and you can demonstrate it, e.g. it's a different model of bolt, it's newer, it's next to an old bolt hole, etc.
Post edited at 21:18
 Jim 1003 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:

It was only one example of the many excuses that could be given to render any case a waste of time...
 Brown 07 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:

I think that the argument that the bolt could have come loose and another unknown party has tightened it beyond the specified tightness thus damaging the fitting is quite compelling.

Bolts do after all regualy come loose and I've never seen anybody at the crag with a torque wrench.
 Dogwatch 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Brown:

> I think that the argument that the bolt could have come loose and another unknown party has tightened it beyond the specified tightness thus damaging the fitting is quite compelling.

Civil case = decided on balance of probabilities.

 EddInaBox 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> ... Can you just clarify that you don't think judges ask questions of witnesses?

Of course judges ask questions, I never suggested they didn't, I was taking issue with your statement about a judge cross examining someone:

> Jim 1003
> Experts get cross examined you know!
> Judge, 'Can you discount the fact somebody has taken this bolt out and replaced it, after it was first placed?'

As has been pointed out already, the rôle of an expert witnesses is to assist the court, and their contribution is very often given in writing, and judges do not do the cross examining.

> here's a quote from the CPS advice to people giving evidence and it appears they think judges will ask questions...

> ...along with a myriad of other things before you could get anywhere near a prosecution.

Yet again you seem to think that we're talking about a criminal trial, in civil actions the defendant is not prosecuted. If you had read the page you linked to you would have realised it was giving advice to witnesses called to give evidence at a criminal trial, not an expert witness which is not the same thing. May I suggest familiarising yourself with Part 35 of The Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
1
 Howard J 08 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Just because it may be difficult to prove in an individual case doesn't negate the general principle that a bolter could be held liable. It is reasonably foreseeable that someone else might climb the route and that they would rely on the bolts, and reasonably foreseeable that if the bolt were to fail they could be injured or killed. It isn't difficult to imagine that the law would see that the bolter owes a duty of care to those other climbers.

We may climb to escape the real world, but that is an illusion and it is naive to think that climbing exists in its own bubble and that the legal responsibilities we owe to others don't apply to climbing as they do to anything else. This doesn't just mean bolting, if at any time we cause injury to others we could be liable if we were found to be negligent (in the legal sense). It doesn't only apply to professionals, although they are held to a higher standard, which is why it makes sense for all climbers to have third-party liability insurance, which comes with membership of the BMC.
 HeMa 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Howard J:
> It isn't difficult to imagine that the law would see that the bolter owes a duty of care to those other climbers.

This would perhaps be the case when bolting is required to build a bridge. Climbing (yes, even bolting clipping) is considered a dangerous activity with built in danger and those practicing it are always reminded that they take responsibility of their actions. It's not like someone is holding a gun on your head makin' you climb.

So unless numerous persons witness another person "bolting" a line using bluetac as the glue. I fail to see how the bolter would end up being procecuted. It didn't happen in Australia with the incorrect bolts and most likely will not happen anywhere else either... unless the location is a for-business climbing park. And in the climbing park -scenario, the one being procecuted will not necessary be the bolter, but the "business owner".
Post edited at 13:08
 Toccata 08 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Rather late to this thread but I was reminded with a conversation with a barrister some years ago when we were discussing Raped by Affection. As I recall the first bolt is very high (?20m) and his comment was on the liability if someone fell. Can't remember his argument in detail but it went along the lines of using bolts for protection on a route is fine but placing (or not placing) them in a way that could cause serious injury could be a liability.

Thoughts?
 HeMa 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Toccata:

> ...but placing (or not placing) them in a way that could cause serious injury could be a liability.

I woud, call it bad bolting... but in the case of the 1st bolt, it should be pretty evident that if you fvck up before the 1st bolt, it can end up badly. So again, no one is forcing you to climb the line, you made that decission. If the ground fall bolting would be somewhere not as evident (say run-out to the top), then there might be a bit more case for liability. But again, you would have the option of bailing before...

Personal responsibility seems to be a thing that modern society doesn't hold in high regard.
 Howard J 08 Dec 2016
In reply to HeMa:

The question isn't how likely is a claim, but whether liability exists. The chain of consequences I referred to in my previous post is the standard approach to determining whether a duty of care is owed, and I find it difficult to believe it doesn't apply to bolting. if there is negligence resulting in injury to someone who is owed a duty of care, then there is liability.

It may be difficult to prove,given that bolt failure can occur for many reasons besides the bolter's negligence, but this does not alter the principle.

Your are right to point out that climbing is dangerous, which may or may not have a bearing on an individual case. Driving is dangerous, but that doesn't mean that claims by injured drivers can't succeed. Liability can be shared, so even if the victim contributed to the accident it doesn't necessarily provide a full defence.

The Australian case is a difficult one. The bolting had been carried out by climbers from overseas, which makes it much more difficult to pursue a claim. They apparently disputed they had been warned that the bolts were not considered suitable for the local rock. The actual death was caused by the cutting of the rope, although this was a consequence of the bolt failing. The climber had gone off route. The victim may not have had insurance and their dependents may not have been willing to risk the costs of a court case. These are all factors which might make it more difficult for a claim to succeed, but because a claim didn't come to court does not indicate that in principle the bolter wasn't liable. Besides, do you know for sure that a claim wasn't made and settled out of court? Most liability claims never come to court.
 Jim 1003 08 Dec 2016
In reply to EddInaBox:
Might I suggest you stop talking more bollocks, who knows if the trial would be criminal or not, the OP was about liabilities for bolters. I think the likelihood is virtually nil in either case, but it could potentially go either way, civil or criminal.
Expert witnesses give evidence orally or in writing, and do get asked questions by Judges, I know that because I am an expert witness. So that's more bollocks you've been talking.
Post edited at 14:45
2
 La benya 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

Jim mate, calm down.

Its very unlikely that the situation described would lead to a criminal case. The CPS/ HSE are very unlikely to take an interest. Anyway, the actual scenario others have been discussing explicitly involved a civil case.

Moreover, if you actually took a breath and read what others had written, you would maybe find less reason to repeat the same thing over and over again (something you seem to do a lot). I can only imagine how you react in court when asked a probing question.

Nobody ever said judges don't ask questions, it was simply your assertion that judges 'cross examine' expert witnesses. By the very definition of 'cross examine' this can only happen by the opposing legal team. Judges definitely ask questions to clarify things for themselves and juries but they don't actually examine the witness.
 Mick Ward 08 Dec 2016
In reply to La benya:

> Jim mate, calm down.

Agree.

Mick
 Jim 1003 08 Dec 2016
In reply to La benya:
I am quite calm, and your not my mate, your somebody who posts bollocks on the internet. I posted because you and your mate Eddina keep posting nonsense. I never said Judges cross examine, I said they ask questions.
It's very unlikely any bolting would ever end up in court for the reasons I gave. Why don't you read the thread then refrain from posting more rubbish.
Post edited at 17:04
6
 La benya 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:


> Experts get cross examined you know!

> Judge, 'Can you discount the fact somebody has taken this bolt out and replaced it, after it was first placed?'

right....
 La benya 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

I do love how you get stuck in a reoccurring rut of using the same sentence again and again. Its endearing, that's what I like about you. But you don't seem calm, are you sure you're OK?

I've read the thread, I haven't posted any rubbish. All you seem to have taken a dislike to is being pulled up on being wrong. I can understand as it must be embarrassing, stating you do this for a job in two separate threads and being made to look silly in both.
 Jim 1003 08 Dec 2016
In reply to La benya:

I think you spend your day looking silly, keep it up. I'll correct you if I feel like it. Glad you finally agree about the cross examining, you'll get there one day.
8
 paul mitchell 08 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:
Come the day when placement of fixed gear is regulated in law,British climbing will be screwed.Permanently.
The rot will spread to liability cases being increasingly pursued.Landowners will demand certification and insurance.Crags will be patrolled to ensure conformity.Maybe even by our very own spotless BMC,who promoted bolts all along the primrose path.Helmets will be compulsory.Exams will be necessary before you are certificated for grade progression. Belaying courses will be compulsory. What is and is not an acceptable risk will become fixed in law.I don't want this. The whole business,and it is a business,of climbing wall competitions leads to an insurance culture and rules based culture.Involvement of money leads to laws and regulations and responsibilities being defined and enforced.I don't want this.
Post edited at 17:39
2
 Mick Ward 08 Dec 2016
In reply to paul mitchell:

> I don't want this.

Nor me.

Mick

1
 Andy Say 08 Dec 2016
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Come the day when placement of fixed gear is regulated in law,British climbing will be screwed.Permanently.

Or maybe there will be a trad resurgence and all those retro-bolts will be removed? Oh, brave new world.....

But really we are not talking here about the 'regulation' of bolting but about the simple concept of responsibility for your actions I think. We have already had 'people' sued for negligence in a climbing context. Its there. Talk to any wall owner; have a quick google of the Smiler Cuthbertson case (e.g. http://mountainclients.typepad.com/mountain_clients/tour-ronde-hedley-v-cut... ). I honestly think that in the hypothetical case I outlined above in the thread a case for negligence would succeed. We might not like it but.......

 Misha 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Toccata:
You can see bolts and that they are high up or well spaced. So by starting the route you are accepting the risk. Would be hard to argue duty of care etc if the route is obviously bold. That is different to a bolt failing due to shoddy bolting. People expect bolts to hold, unless they are old and corroded etc. You can't necessarily tell that a bolt is dodgy as opposed to old and corroded.
 EddInaBox 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> ... who knows if the trial would be criminal or not, the OP was about liabilities for bolters. I think the likelihood is virtually nil in either case, but it could potentially go either way, civil or criminal.

... and you've contradicted yourself again, from advising the O.P. that "There would be no legal fallback" to saying there might be. If you're giving legal advice it is rather irresponsible to say there is categorically no way a person would have a legal case to answer if there is a chance, no matter how remote.

> Expert witnesses give evidence orally or in writing, and do get asked questions by Judges, I know that because I am an expert witness. So that's more bollocks you've been talking.

I'm afraid you've lost me there, you seem to be banging on yet again about how I'm wrong to say judges don't ask questions, but I didn't say that, I already told you I didn't say that - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=654356#x8451217 perhaps you missed that one.
 Misha 08 Dec 2016
In reply to paul mitchell:
No one wants that but it does not change the reality of the situation. The question posed by the OP is could there be a successsful claim for poor bolting which resulted in an accident. Some people, including me, think there could be a claim and that it is naive to say it will never happen. We all hope there will be no bolt failure accidents and indeed they are very rare, but they do happen and claims may be made. In the event of clear negligence where on the balance of probability the bolt failure is not due to 'natural causes' or damage by a third party, a claim may well succeed. It is going to be a pretty rare event, so whether that leads to more regulation and insurance etc is a moot point.
 Howard J 08 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Some people are talking as if this is something new - it isn't. The classic court case which established the modern law of negligence goes back to 1932, Donoghue v. Stevenson. I'm baffled that some people seem to think that climbing should somehow be exempt from the laws of the land.

Liability claims do arise in climbing. Apart from the well-known Cuthbertson case, in 2003 the BMC advised there had been 2 actual claims on its combined members' public liability insurance since 1999 and another 4 notifications. Fortunately that's not very many, and the amounts paid out were small, but it shows that liability can exist.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=61132&v=1#x811221

It might be very difficult to prove in the case of a bolt failure, but that does not mean that a potential liability does not exist, and that if evidence were found to show on the balance of probabilities that there had been negligence and this had resulted in injury then I can see no reason in principle why a claim should not succeed.

 Andy Say 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:

I know its semantics but really we are talking about 'placement failure' here, aren't we. 'Bolt failure' implies a material breakage, a snapping hanger, a shearing bolt head etc. Which will often come down to manufacture.

Poorly drilled holes, inappropriate choice of equipment, failure to check adhesives etc will come down to the person doing the placement.
 Misha 08 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

Agree.
 andrewmc 08 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

Scenarios:

a) Someone bolts up a new route, and deliberately uses bluetack instead of glue.

b) Someone can't be bothered to drill the holes as deep as they should, so they cut the bolts down in size to say 5cm before gluing them in.

c) Someone is being cheap so bolts a route with bolts that look good but are widely-known to be dangerous and will fail soon after installation.

d) Someone fails to check their glue gun, glue is not properly mixed.

e) Subtle detail about bolt placement is overlooked e.g. expansion bolts in slate, too short bolts in sandstone, unusual corrosion of bolt

f) Bolt is placed into (not obviously) poor rock.

g) Bolt is far weaker than it should be (but this is not a known problem).

End result in all cases: bolt rips.

My take: if you act reasonably, you will be fine. If you do stupid, stupid things when you should have known better, you might be in trouble. The law isn't expecting you to change the laws of physics - old bolts will fail. We do, however, know that most newish bolts don't fail - it is extremely rare. Therefore any deviation from this requires explanation, and if it is something you did that you shouldn't (or vice versa) you may be in trouble. As you should.

So a, b, c - negligent (a might just be attempted murder)
d - would be up to the court to decide whether failing to check the glue is negligent to a reasonable person or not.
e - probably not negligent if the detail is subtle
f, g - not the negligence of the bolter.

Don't do stupid things.
 Andy Say 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

I think with a) you might, just, be looking at a manslaughter charge
c) has sort of happened in North Wales.
d) has happened in the Peak
f) has recently happened at Orgon (I have photos of the four lower-offs still in the rock lying next to the path).

Not sure about the other scenarios.
 paul mitchell 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:
A friend,who likes both trad and bolted,had placed a bolt lower off at a quarry.It was in a clearly cracked flake.That would have been a sixty foot fall.I didn't take him to court.I took out the bolt and gave him the ''hairdryer '' treatment.He is well bouffant now.
Post edited at 10:56
 Andy Nisbet 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

d is not at all easy. I presume it's what happened in 2 fatal accidents in France. I had to rebolt a route at Moy when the glue didn't set. I would like to think unpaid bolters would check but I'd also like to think that it wouldn't involve a court.
 Dave Garnett 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

In general that all seems pretty sensible.

> The law isn't expecting you to change the laws of physics - old bolts will fail.

I think this is the bit that worries me. What if the law were to take the view that the bolter has a continuing duty of care? To what extent would it be expected that old bolts should be removed or at least clearly signposted?

 elsewhere 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:
If you can't afford to defend the case would you just have to accept liability regardless?


 Sl@te Head 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> Scenarios:
> e) Subtle detail about bolt placement is overlooked e.g. expansion bolts in slate, too short bolts in sandstone, unusual corrosion of bolt

Re comments about expansion bolts in slate:

I personally don't agree that all expansion bolt placements on slate routes are a problem as the quality of slate is so variable, each route and indeed each placement needs to be considered on an individual basis.

I do think that lower offs on the extremely popular routes are getting a hammering with hundreds / thousands of ascents which could not have been predicted when they were originally bolted; these routes would benefit from resin bolts (as far as I know many of these routes have now been sorted). Crux bolts are also worth replacing especially ones that take regular falls, or are often rested on whilst working routes.

If there is concern out there about expansion bolts in slate as was reported in a headline grabbing way on UKC and also by the BMC a few years ago, perhaps something needs to be done about it? Maybe the BMC should increase any funding to the North Wales Bolt Fund so that funds are available for a replacement program to replace them all with glue ins? Crowd funding could be set up if the BMC don't have sufficient funds?

If there was ever a successful claim in the UK against a 'Bolter', I'm sure many Bolts would be stripped by the first ascensionists which would be a sad state of affairs.

It also worth saying that Slate has always been a 'risky' rock type, with many routes falling down over the years.....take care and be aware!

OP andyb211 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:
I asked the question because there was an accident, involving a young French couple, on one of my routes on Telendos, Memories of Dorothy 5a sector Irox about 4 weeks ago, leader pulled a handhold off which then promptly hit his belayer, injuring her but she was wearing a helmet.

The route was cleaned and bolted, with A4 316i stainless steel 10mm x 100mm thru bolts and A4 316i hangers, over 2 days in September 2012 and has had 100's of ascents prior.

We checked our routes on subsequent visits to Kalymnos, Sept 2013, May 2014, October 2015 checked each bolt with a torque wrench cleaned off any plants and loose pebbles and checked the holds, everything was perfect on the route.

During the municipality rebolting, despite being only 3 yrs old, the route was rebolted, recleaned, without my knowledge or consultation and the line of the route changed/straightened, it now runs at 6b/c!

When I revisited Kalymnos in May I didn't check the above route, it having been rebolted and the line changed by the municipality team which, in my opinion, absolves me of future responsibility for that route.

All my other routes both in Kaly, Mallorca and Costa B I check and maintain when I go back and will do so, I personally feel a moral obligation to do this, why?

I want to see people enjoy our climbs, I want them to be as "safe" as I can possibly make them and its fun to build routes in a masochistic way

Its also a way to give something back to climbing as a thank you for giving me so much over the last 45 years!
Post edited at 18:01
 jimtitt 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> Scenarios:

> a) Someone bolts up a new route, and deliberately uses bluetack instead of glue.

> b) Someone can't be bothered to drill the holes as deep as they should, so they cut the bolts down in size to say 5cm before gluing them in.

> c) Someone is being cheap so bolts a route with bolts that look good but are widely-known to be dangerous and will fail soon after installation.

> d) Someone fails to check their glue gun, glue is not properly mixed.

> e) Subtle detail about bolt placement is overlooked e.g. expansion bolts in slate, too short bolts in sandstone, unusual corrosion of bolt

> f) Bolt is placed into (not obviously) poor rock.

> g) Bolt is far weaker than it should be (but this is not a known problem).

> End result in all cases: bolt rips.

> My take: if you act reasonably, you will be fine. If you do stupid, stupid things when you should have known better, you might be in trouble. The law isn't expecting you to change the laws of physics - old bolts will fail. We do, however, know that most newish bolts don't fail - it is extremely rare. Therefore any deviation from this requires explanation, and if it is something you did that you shouldn't (or vice versa) you may be in trouble. As you should.

> So a, b, c - negligent (a might just be attempted murder)

> d - would be up to the court to decide whether failing to check the glue is negligent to a reasonable person or not.

> e - probably not negligent if the detail is subtle

> f, g - not the negligence of the bolter.

> Don't do stupid things.

a) is reputed to have occured, all the others are known to have occured and climbers should take this into account when they rely on a bolt.
 EddInaBox 09 Dec 2016
In reply to andyb211:

If that had happened in the UK, I can't see any conceivable way that you would owe a duty of care unless you had specifically described the route as safe and that the rock was solid, even then I doubt any claim against you would stick. Since none of your bolts failed I can't see that the fact you originally bolted it would have any bearing on the matter. Has all your original hardware been removed, in which case you would have no future liability either, unless it could be shown that your drilling was in some way negligent, and I can't see how that could be the case. However since the route you mentioned is in Kalymnos, I'm afraid I have no idea.
OP andyb211 09 Dec 2016
In reply to jimtitt:

And the pull test report for blu tacked in bolts is published when?

It would be a lot less messy than resin : )
 Misha 09 Dec 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> If you can't afford to defend the case would you just have to accept liability regardless?

But then you wouldn't be worth suing in the first place...
 elsewhere 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Misha:
> But then you wouldn't be worth suing in the first place...

That's probably true but I was wondering how it works when many people have a partially paid off house worth a £250,000 (UK average? ) and no cash to pay lawyers.

 HeMa 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Andy Nisbet:

I agree, at least the Hilti glue we use in Finland can be quite fiddly... as in, it will set but if the mixing is not complete it will be weakened... perhaps even enough for the bolt to fail on a normal fall scenario.
 ptrickey 28 Dec 2016
In reply to Doug Kerr:

And what about people hitting the ground as they ate all the pies?
Doug Kerr 28 Dec 2016
In reply to ptrickey:

> And what about people hitting the ground as they ate all the pies?

Indeed, Mr Kipling should expect a call from the legal team.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...